5stringJeff
Senior Member
yeula said:Were the people comparing him to chruchill the same people who told us Saddam had WMD?
In 2002, even the cowardly French thought Saddam had WMDs.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
yeula said:Were the people comparing him to chruchill the same people who told us Saddam had WMD?
yeula said:Gop Jeff even if Saddam did have WMD which he didn't, we were lied to by a lying president who should be impeached for his lies, we could have deterred him, we didn't have to invade his two bit country.
gop_jeff said:Yeula, thanks for your diatribe. To rebut:
1. What specific lies did Bush tell, and why are they impeachable? Did Bush lie under oath?
2. What further deterence would have persuaded Saddam to give full disclosure into his WMD programs, since 17 UN resolutions and 12 years of sanctions failed to do so?
3. Do you consider the blatant, repeated violation of the 1991 cease-fire agreement that ended Gulf War I to be a justification for military action against Saddam Hussein?
yeula said:1. What specific lies did Bush tell, and why are they impeachable? Did Bush lie under oath?
Are you suggesting to me that you respect the law? Are you saying we must abide by rule of law? Are you saying we must abide by the Constitution? Thats rich. The Supreme court selected bush, he was never elected to anything but you're pretending that we must abide by the law and your new criteria is "lied under oath". What a hoot. You can steal the White House and all is well and good but by god if you lie under oath about a blow job we'll get you! hhahahahahahahahahaha
Bush lied under oath when he was sworn in and he swore to defend the Constituion of the United States. He broke the constituion when he took the power to wage war which does not belong with the Executive Branch. If lying about a blow job rises to the level of impeachment I would have to say that breaking the constitution does as well.
Bush could also be taken to the International Court in The Hague for war crimes. Attacking another soverign nation that has done nothing to you is a war crime. Preemptive war is a crime. Not to mention its undemocratic.
A judge in Denmark stopped and prohibed the law there from seizing Bush recently when he visited the Netherlands saying that it would have an adverse affect on relations with the US. In other words the US is too powerful militarily for the world to bring Bush and Sharon to justice the way we are bringing Saddam. But they are criminals nevertheless. The only people who will be able to bring them to justice are the American people.
2. What further deterence would have persuaded Saddam to give full disclosure into his WMD programs, since 17 UN resolutions and 12 years of sanctions failed to do so?
Excuse me - Saddam had complied. He had no WMD. duh.
3. Do you consider the blatant, repeated violation of the 1991 cease-fire agreement that ended Gulf War I to be a justification for military action against Saddam Hussein?
No I do not consider that a reason to invade Iraq. The only firing I'm aware of is when the US kept shooting down Iraqi planes while controling 2/3 of Iraqi airspace.
Israel and the US are nations that flagrantly violate and break laws right and left. Might does not make right.
yeula said:Policy of regime change does not alter the illegality of pre-emptive war. Bush may be serverely lacking in imagination but that does not mean he can illgeally invade another nation that has done nothing to us. We must impeach all presidents who break the law.
Carrying the analogy of drink to its logical conclusion you don't drink kool aid you drink similac.
yeula said:Policy of regime change does not alter the illegality of pre-emptive war. Bush may be serverely lacking in imagination but that does not mean he can illgeally invade another nation that has done nothing to us. We must impeach all presidents who break the law.
Carrying the analogy of drink to its logical conclusion you don't drink kool aid you drink similac.
oldyeula said:1. What specific lies did Bush tell, and why are they impeachable? Did Bush lie under oath?
Are you suggesting to me that you respect the law? Are you saying we must abide by rule of law? Are you saying we must abide by the Constitution? Thats rich. The Supreme court selected bush, he was never elected to anything but you're pretending that we must abide by the law and your new criteria is "lied under oath". What a hoot. You can steal the White House and all is well and good but by god if you lie under oath about a blow job we'll get you! hhahahahahahahahahaha
so how many times must one slap his hand before being punished?2. What further deterence would have persuaded Saddam to give full disclosure into his WMD programs, since 17 UN resolutions and 12 years of sanctions failed to do so?
Excuse me - Saddam had complied. He had no WMD. duh.
3. Do you consider the blatant, repeated violation of the 1991 cease-fire agreement that ended Gulf War I to be a justification for military action against Saddam Hussein?
No I do not consider that a reason to invade Iraq. The only firing I'm aware of is when the US kept shooting down Iraqi planes while controling 2/3 of Iraqi airspace.
Israel and the US are nations that flagrantly violate and break laws right and left. Might does not make right.
yeula said:1. What specific lies did Bush tell, and why are they impeachable? Did Bush lie under oath?
Are you suggesting to me that you respect the law? Are you saying we must abide by rule of law? Are you saying we must abide by the Constitution? Thats rich. The Supreme court selected bush, he was never elected to anything but you're pretending that we must abide by the law and your new criteria is "lied under oath". What a hoot. You can steal the White House and all is well and good but by god if you lie under oath about a blow job we'll get you! hhahahahahahahahahaha
Bush lied under oath when he was sworn in and he swore to defend the Constituion of the United States. He broke the constituion when he took the power to wage war which does not belong with the Executive Branch. If lying about a blow job rises to the level of impeachment I would have to say that breaking the constitution does as well.
Bush could also be taken to the International Court in The Hague for war crimes. Attacking another soverign nation that has done nothing to you is a war crime. Preemptive war is a crime. Not to mention its undemocratic.
A judge in Denmark stopped and prohibed the law there from seizing Bush recently when he visited the Netherlands saying that it would have an adverse affect on relations with the US. In other words the US is too powerful militarily for the world to bring Bush and Sharon to justice the way we are bringing Saddam. But they are criminals nevertheless. The only people who will be able to bring them to justice are the American people.
2. What further deterence would have persuaded Saddam to give full disclosure into his WMD programs, since 17 UN resolutions and 12 years of sanctions failed to do so?
Excuse me - Saddam had complied. He had no WMD. duh.
3. Do you consider the blatant, repeated violation of the 1991 cease-fire agreement that ended Gulf War I to be a justification for military action against Saddam Hussein?
No I do not consider that a reason to invade Iraq. The only firing I'm aware of is when the US kept shooting down Iraqi planes while controling 2/3 of Iraqi airspace.
Israel and the US are nations that flagrantly violate and break laws right and left. Might does not make right.
yeula said:I wanted to set the record straight because it is Bush who is comparable to Hitler, not Saddam.
yeula said:Now you have admitted that invading another nation unprovoked is a crime. Thats progress. The proper thing to do with Saddam is for the International Community to put him on trial in The Hague.
Now we need to do something about Bush who has committed the same crime. He must be taken to The Hague.
yeula said:Now you have admitted that invading another nation unprovoked is a crime. Thats progress. The proper thing to do with Saddam is for the International Community to put him on trial in The Hague.
Now we need to do something about Bush who has committed the same crime. He must be taken to The Hague.
yeula said:Now you have admitted that invading another nation unprovoked is a crime. Thats progress. The proper thing to do with Saddam is for the International Community to put him on trial in The Hague.
Now we need to do something about Bush who has committed the same crime. He must be taken to The Hague.
Trinity said::rotflmao: Tried to rep ya, but I have to spread it around some more first!
yeula said:Policy of regime change does not alter the illegality of pre-emptive war. Bush may be serverely lacking in imagination but that does not mean he can illgeally invade another nation that has done nothing to us. We must impeach all presidents who break the law.
Carrying the analogy of drink to its logical conclusion you don't drink kool aid you drink similac.